Sorry if I've caused any confusion on this. Just had 5 mins to nose around and noticed the date the RBG are quoting they received the acv nomination differs from the 16 week the trust is saying. Also thought it worth mentioning that part of the meeting was behind closed doors and seems to be to discuss masterplans, though this could be totally unrelated.
Sorry if I've caused any confusion on this. Just had 5 mins to nose around and noticed the date the RBG are quoting they received the acv nomination differs from the 16 week the trust is saying. Also thought it worth mentioning that part of the meeting was behind closed doors and seems to be to discuss masterplans, though this could be totally unrelated.
Indeed, and their quoted date is false. Unless they think it is OK to leave a document lying around unread for three weeks, which in their case is perfectly possible. But they should still quote the date sent, and not the date they 'entered it in the system' or any other similar crap.
I think that is the case Prague, both the officers involved went on seperate summer holidays for two weeks each, I assumed at the time they were covering each persons portfolio. In fact we made the first application enquiry for ACV, that neither the press office or operator had even heard of the process. 'Pending in a file', is why the process has an approximate time scale. 8 weeks from lodging the papers. The due process should therefore be concluded within that time frame. Of course the officers can ask for a delay/clarification, none was sought. None was sought as it was completed correctly, I see one nomination has been rejected for that reason.
We went down there Afka in person to discuss a possible application in early summer. Eventually spoke to the officers, who had only been given this task-ACV . In fairness it is a new bit of legislation, so like all council officers they had to learn the act, and the guidelines the RBG wish to consider these types of applications. Part of that process is to evaluate the applicant are they suitable, and a range of questions as to why we nominated this. The club were also formally written to agreeing to this.
Weigall Sports ground is either own by or leased by Greenwich Council, all bookings for the facillities are through Greenwich Council. Progess Hall is run by a charity which appears to be have set up by Greenwich Council although Sainsburys are probally the owners. Lovelace Green and Sandby Green are both on the Progress Estate Eltham and are both owned by Greenwich Council all very strange.
I wrote to my three Councillors in Plumstead ward. Only one bothered to reply, Matt Morrow, who promised to look into the process and get back to me "in the next couple of weeks". I forwarded him the relevant briefing note from the Parliament website in response.
8 weeks is long enough to get this considered, there are prescribed criteria for qualification after all, and even if you were to accept a 3-4 week delay in receiving the application they are still well over time.
To me there is no excuse. They have managed to reach a decision on two previously, so claiming a lack of defined/approved process is a blocker defies logic.
This lot are the main reason why I generally oppose a greater emphasis on local government in our democracy. They're unaccountable and irresponsible.
Confirmed the arrangements for determining nominations to register Assets of Community Value, as set out in the report, subject to the determination of applications for assets to be included on the list being taken at Director level and the review also to be undertaken at Director level.
Might be a red herring but I found this elsewhere:
Delivering the Council's Priorities - Growth Strategy Masterplans Find out more about this issue Decision maker: Cabinet
Decision type: Key
Decision status: For Determination
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: Yes
Decision: Agreed the following to take forward the Council’s priorities for regeneration, growth and employment identified in the Growth Strategy Masterplans:
Charlton Riverside:
Commissioned a detailed masterplan to control the development of the land zoned in the outline Charlton Riverside masterplan, plus social infrastructure.
Authorised the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills , in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills to enter into a legal agreement with a development partner(s) in order to secure the matters detailed in the exempt report, and a further report on the detailed Masterplan and the Heads of Terms to be presented to Cabinet.
Noted that the Council will make every effort to support existing businesses to relocate as appropriate.
My emphasis.
I accept that it is debatable as to whether or not Charlton Athletic FC falls into the category of "Charlton Riverside" but with the inordinate amount of time and what I would describe as bureaucratic obfuscation re the ACV application one cannot help but wonder.
That basically sounds like they have ratified arrangements that were already in place!
The only thing I can't determine is whether they consider "Assistant" Director as sufficient. This is the role title shown in the ACV report.
Either way, I assume that they now want to give themselves a further 8 weeks to actually do what they should already have completed.
I think you probably have it Tel This will probably be Ralph Millon, one of the two officers we saw at the centre in the first instance. The GB cabinet have I assume given back the authorisation to the officers who dealt with the process\application, in the first place. So why the delay? This is like an episode of yes minister. Perhaps they will have to have a 'review' or some such consideration, just before they have to have another 'annual holiday' One might think this was 'buck passing', but I could not possibly comment..........
Confirmed the arrangements for determining nominations to register Assets of Community Value, as set out in the report, subject to the determination of applications for assets to be included on the list being taken at Director level and the review also to be undertaken at Director level.
all it say (I think) is that where an ACV decision could previously be taken by an.officer of the council.in the interim period it must be now taken by a director member of the.council
as predicted.
sweet f.a. - absolutely unneccesary and didnt need to be delayed as our application was during the interim period. So they are retroactively applying this to a pre existing application.
of course they will see it was always planned and noone told the trust because it wasnt important
Gosh that note of minutes is horrific. Did someone swallow the bible of wankspeak?
Growth Strategy Masterplan. - call something a masterplan early doors and watch it fail.
and nice to see that for every item no alternative options were considered
all it say (I think) is that where an ACV decision could previously be taken by an.officer of the council.in the interim period it must be now taken by a director member of the.council
as predicted.
sweet f.a. - absolutely unneccesary and didnt need to be delayed as our application was during the interim period. So they are retroactively applying this to a pre existing application.
of course they will see it was always planned and noone told the trust because it wasnt important
Gosh that note of minutes is horrific. Did someone swallow the bible of wankspeak?
Growth Strategy Masterplan. - call something a masterplan early doors and watch it fail.
and nice to see that for every item no alternative options were considered
I'm sure they were considered - just long before the democratic stage lol
I'm sure Roberts will be at one of the next 2 home games sitting in the directors box as per usual. Maybe one of your trust committee could have a word with him before he enters.
I'm sure Roberts will be at one of the next 2 home games sitting in the directors box as per usual. Maybe one of your trust committee could have a word with him before he enters.
Count me out of that task. I'd see the red mist, rollin in from the Thames
And what would he say, yeah you got me fair cop gov?
i
Well nothing appears to be happening at the moment. There is a lot of hot air on here about why the decision has been delayed. Ask the man the question. If he says no comment, then at least you have tried.
Just to let you know, the officer who is in charge of this application is... Ralph Million: property strategy/asset manager at royal borough of greenwich. However, the RBG has already discussed this at 'Director level' by the local MP Nick Raynsford with Steve Pallett Asst Director of regeneration RBG, three months ago! The email sent by the MP's office confirms 'Steve did not think there would be an obstacles to this application'....... So again to be clear, why give that undertaking to the local MP ( who is very experienced in planning matters) at that time and then delay the decision?. I would be happy to speak to Roberts, but I have never been anywhere near the directors box!.
We've been stiffed. Once the takeover is complete ACV will fall into place but I suspect as far as TJ and RBG is concerned its job done. New owners I doubt will be bothered by the six month consultation. Next 12 months will tell us all we need to know. Let's regroup and build bridges with the new lot.
That stinks Ken. Raynsford can't be trusted with a bargepole either, although I'm aware he's stepping down.
I agree with SHG's last sentence but I don't think RBG should be allowed to just get away with such duplicitous behaviour. We should hold them, and particularly Roberts, to account.
Comments
Just had 5 mins to nose around and noticed the date the RBG are quoting they received the acv nomination differs from the 16 week the trust is saying.
Also thought it worth mentioning that part of the meeting was behind closed doors and seems to be to discuss masterplans, though this could be totally unrelated.
Name Postcode Date of nomination Status
Weigall Road Sports Ground SE9 24/06/2013 Approved by officers
Progress Hall and Land SE9 1SL 01/07/2013 Approved by officers
Lovelace Green SE9 1LG 13/08/2013 Decision Pending
Sandby Green SE9 6NJ 13/08/2013 Decision Pending
The Valley SE7 8BL 15/08/2013 Decision Pending
The Star Inn SE18 2UL 27/08/2013 Decision Pending
The Plume of Feathers SE18 1JT 27/08/2013 Decision Pending
The Dutch House SE12 9AL Two invalid nominations
In fact we made the first application enquiry for ACV, that neither the press office or operator had even heard of the process. 'Pending in a file', is why the process has an approximate time scale.
8 weeks from lodging the papers. The due process should therefore be concluded within that time frame. Of course the officers can ask for a delay/clarification, none was sought.
None was sought as it was completed correctly, I see one nomination has been rejected for that reason.
Was it before or after that they had never heard of the process Ken?
Eventually spoke to the officers, who had only been given this task-ACV . In fairness it is a new bit of legislation, so like all council officers they had to learn the act, and the guidelines the RBG wish to
consider these types of applications. Part of that process is to evaluate the applicant are they suitable, and a range of questions as to why we nominated this.
The club were also formally written to agreeing to this.
8 weeks is long enough to get this considered, there are prescribed criteria for qualification after all, and even if you were to accept a 3-4 week delay in receiving the application they are still well over time.
To me there is no excuse. They have managed to reach a decision on two previously, so claiming a lack of defined/approved process is a blocker defies logic.
This lot are the main reason why I generally oppose a greater emphasis on local government in our democracy. They're unaccountable and irresponsible.
Assets of Community Value - Process for Determination pdf icon PDF 69 KB
The Cabinet is requested to confirm arrangements for determining applications to register Assets of Community Value, as set out in the report.
Additional documents:
08 - Assets Community Value appendix , item 8. pdf icon PDF 65 KB
Decision:
Confirmed the arrangements for determining nominations to register Assets of Community Value, as set out in the report, subject to the determination of applications for assets to be included on the list being taken at Director level and the review also to be undertaken at Director level.
anyone care to decipher?
The only thing I can't determine is whether they consider "Assistant" Director as sufficient. This is the role title shown in the ACV report.
Either way, I assume that they now want to give themselves a further 8 weeks to actually do what they should already have completed.
Delivering the Council's Priorities - Growth Strategy Masterplans
Find out more about this issue
Decision maker: Cabinet
Decision type: Key
Decision status: For Determination
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: Yes
Decision:
Agreed the following to take forward the Council’s priorities for regeneration, growth and employment identified in the Growth Strategy Masterplans:
Charlton Riverside:
Commissioned a detailed masterplan to control the development of the land zoned in the outline Charlton Riverside masterplan, plus social infrastructure.
Authorised the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills , in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills to enter into a legal agreement with a development partner(s) in order to secure the matters detailed in the exempt report, and a further report on the detailed Masterplan and the Heads of Terms to be presented to Cabinet.
Noted that the Council will make every effort to support existing businesses to relocate as appropriate.
My emphasis.
I accept that it is debatable as to whether or not Charlton Athletic FC falls into the category of "Charlton Riverside" but with the inordinate amount of time and what I would describe as bureaucratic obfuscation re the ACV application one cannot help but wonder.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/57297/new-article-going-over-old-ground-new-ground-and-the-regeneration-of-charlton
This will probably be Ralph Millon, one of the two officers we saw at the centre in the first instance.
The GB cabinet have I assume given back the authorisation to the officers who dealt with the process\application, in the first place.
So why the delay?
This is like an episode of yes minister.
Perhaps they will have to have a 'review' or some such consideration, just before they have to have another 'annual holiday'
One might think this was 'buck passing', but I could not possibly comment..........
Yes. AFKA's post did not get the attention it deserved at the time. I think it is highly relevant.
Confirmed the arrangements for
determining nominations to
register Assets of Community
Value, as set out in the report,
subject to the determination of
applications for assets to be
included on the list being taken at
Director level and the review also
to be undertaken at Director level.
http://committees.greenwich.gov.uk/documents/g3135/Decisions 20th-Nov-2013 19.00 Cabinet.pdf?T=2
as predicted.
sweet f.a. - absolutely unneccesary and didnt need to be delayed as our application was during the interim period. So they are retroactively applying this to a pre existing application.
of course they will see it was always planned and noone told the trust because it wasnt important
Gosh that note of minutes is horrific. Did someone swallow the bible of wankspeak?
Growth Strategy Masterplan. - call something a masterplan early doors and watch it fail.
and nice to see that for every item no alternative options were considered
Well nothing appears to be happening at the moment. There is a lot of hot air on here about why the decision has been delayed. Ask the man the question. If he says no comment, then at least you have tried.
Ralph Million: property strategy/asset manager at royal borough of greenwich.
However, the RBG has already discussed this at 'Director level' by the local MP Nick Raynsford with Steve Pallett Asst Director of regeneration RBG, three months ago! The email sent by the MP's office
confirms 'Steve did not think there would be an obstacles to this application'....... So again to be clear, why give that undertaking to the local MP ( who is very experienced in planning matters) at that time and then delay the decision?.
I would be happy to speak to Roberts, but I have never been anywhere near the directors box!.
I agree with SHG's last sentence but I don't think RBG should be allowed to just get away with such duplicitous behaviour. We should hold them, and particularly Roberts, to account.